An Inappropriate Use of Special Forces

Warfare has evolved again, and today, terrorism has become an intrinsic part of the world order. This type of conflict is ambiguous, spills across borders and is not subject to the lessons learned from history’s book on warfare. However, President Barack Obama has decidedly attempted to convince the American people otherwise, particularly in the War on Terror and in confronting ISIS.

Time and again, President Obama has made clear his objective to bring troops home, and in areas of ongoing conflict, he has authorized a minimal and limited “boots on the ground” presence. Now given the troubling violence instigated by ISIS and spreading across Iraq and Syria, even the president undoubtedly realizes that keeping “boots on the ground” in some capacity is unavoidable. It remains to be seen if Obama’s policies can be effective in stabilizing regions where civil society and governance have struggled to take root.

Rather than walk back his past pledges, President Obama has elected to utilize smaller “special operations” forces in place of deploying larger “combat” forces to manage the terrorist crises in the Middle East. In fact, just last month, he announced plans to expand the presence of special operations in Syria, where ISIS currently controls significant territory. Iraq, another ISIS stronghold, is also slated to receive additional U.S. special operations troops.

These forces are highly skilled and specialized for missions like the one five years ago that got Osama Bin Laden. Special operations missions are typically reserved for training local forces to fight effectively against terrorist groups like al Qaeda, Boko Haram and ISIS. While they are considered valuable contributors in fighting terrorism, special operations are not the preferred tool for engaging extremist groups who control large areas of land and hold valuable economic resources, helping those terrorists gain power and spread chaos. The enemy does not acknowledge countries’ integrity, borders nor their humanitarian or armed conflict laws which puts smaller units in danger and our service members at an enormous disadvantage.

Army Chief of Staff Gen. Mark A. Milley has no qualms speaking about the falsehoods and myths of warfare, one of which is that, “America only needs an elite, rapid-reaction force to win wars of the future.” He explained, “While America’s special operations are the best in the world, their success at killing high-value targets is a necessary tactical strategy, but not sufficient. To prevail in war [it] takes so much more than killing high-value terrorists with drone strikes and small-unit raids.”

Since the Obama administration announced plans to bolster special operations forces in the Middle East, under the guise of assisting local military efforts, recent events suggest engagement has grown beyond its intended role. Earlier this month a U.S. Navy SEAL, Charles Keating IV, was killed during a firefight with ISIS militants in northern Iraq.

I am troubled by what appears to be a growing primary reliance on special operations in lieu of a more comprehensive strategy from the Administration to defeat ISIS. It is evident that President Obama believes we need boots on the ground. But not involving Congress in a broader discussion about the authorization of the use of military force (AUMF) and what is needed in the future makes the fight against our enemy more difficult—not easier. Until the president and Congress engage on the issue, America’s success in this long fight will remain elusive.